OpenNotes enables patients to access EHR notes, but medical jargon can hinder comprehension. To improve understanding, we evaluated closed- and open-source LLMs for extracting and prioritizing key medical terms using prompting, fine-tuning, and data augmentation. We assessed LLMs on 106 expert-annotated EHR notes, experimenting with (i) general vs. structured prompts, (ii) zero-shot vs. few-shot prompting, (iii) fine-tuning, and (iv) data augmentation. To enhance open-source models in low-resource settings, we used ChatGPT for data augmentation and applied ranking techniques. We incrementally increased the augmented dataset size (10 to 10,000) and conducted 5-fold cross-validation, reporting F1 score and Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR). Our result show that fine-tuning and data augmentation improved performance over other strategies. GPT-4 Turbo achieved the highest F1 (0.433), while Mistral7B with data augmentation had the highest MRR (0.746). Open-source models, when fine-tuned or augmented, outperformed closed-source models. Notably, the best F1 and MRR scores did not always align. Few-shot prompting outperformed zero-shot in vanilla models, and structured prompts yielded different preferences across models. Fine-tuning improved zero-shot performance but sometimes degraded few-shot performance. Data augmentation performed comparably or better than other methods. Our evaluation highlights the effectiveness of prompting, fine-tuning, and data augmentation in improving model performance for medical jargon extraction in low-resource scenarios.

Automatic question generation (QG) is essential for AI and NLP, particularly in intelligent tutoring, dialogue systems, and fact verification. Generating multiple-choice questions (MCQG) for professional exams, like the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), is particularly challenging, requiring domain expertise and complex multi-hop reasoning for high-quality questions. However, current large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 struggle with professional MCQG due to outdated knowledge, hallucination issues, and prompt sensitivity, resulting in unsatisfactory quality and difficulty. To address these challenges, we propose MCQG-SRefine, an LLM self-refine-based (Critique and Correction) framework for converting medical cases into high-quality USMLE-style questions. By integrating expert-driven prompt engineering with iterative self-critique and self-correction feedback, MCQG-SRefine significantly enhances human expert satisfaction regarding both the quality and difficulty of the questions. Furthermore, we introduce an LLM-as-Judge-based automatic metric to replace the complex and costly expert evaluation process, ensuring reliable and expert-aligned assessments.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) in healthcare require advanced clinical skills (CS), yet current benchmarks fail to evaluate these comprehensively. We introduce MedQA-CS, an AI-SCE framework inspired by medical education's Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs), to address this gap. MedQA-CS evaluates LLMs through two instruction-following tasks, LLM-as-medical-student and LLM-as-CS-examiner, designed to reflect real clinical scenarios. Our contributions include developing MedQA-CS, a comprehensive evaluation framework with publicly available data and expert annotations, and providing the quantitative and qualitative assessment of LLMs as reliable judges in CS evaluation. Our experiments show that MedQA-CS is a more challenging benchmark for evaluating clinical skills than traditional multiple-choice QA benchmarks (e.g., MedQA). Combined with existing benchmarks, MedQA-CS enables a more comprehensive evaluation of LLMs' clinical capabilities for both open- and closed-source LLMs.